Interesting.

And here’s another good analysis from Silver.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/

I doubt that would be a good assumption to make.

@Ken: I gather you arrived at that opinion the same way he did.

I’ve got another one from that day I’m going to put in a post as well.

Trump did slightly better than Romney among non-college whites, 67% versus 61%. Not sure that’s enough to be decisive.

In any case, these deplorables you deplore so haughtily were the backbone of the Democrat party for most of the 20th century. So if you like big government, you can thank them.

Michelle Obama championed “good for you” school lunches that were not well-received by the clientele, so it’s not clear she’d win any school elections here.

Never mind 2008: Clinton ran about even with Kerry’s result 12 years ago, and on a significantly larger population base. Meanwhile Trump underperformed President Bush’s total that year. (Either data-driven GOTV isn’t all it’s cracked up to be — or without it, turnout would be truly abysmal.)

But it depends on the state. In several states (enough to swing the electoral college, as it happens), Trump actually outperformed Obama 2012. So it’s a little too pat to put Clinton’s loss down to base turnout.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442059/dont-blame-clinton-trump-2016-wouldve-beaten-obama-2012

Turnout depends a lot too on what else is on the ballot in a given state and year.

I imagine he’d be thrilled too – it must be ghastly for a kid cooped up inside all the time in a penthouse. Imagine never getting to run around outside on the grass as a kid!